On 10:28 Fri 13 Mar , Jan Lübbe wrote: > On Do, 2015-03-12 at 19:19 +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > please do not send a new version except for fix > > > > I'm going to re-integrate it with the keystore & co > > Could you describe your keystore design? I'll send the patch series soon code is better than 1000s of words with DER support and the fit > > > and sha1,rsa2048 is considered weak in term of security > > and worse md4/md5 > > > > for barebox I would only use > > at least sha256 with rs2048 or sha512 with rsa4096 > > Yes, of course. These were only used as an example and it's trivial to > switch to other hash algos or RSA key sizes. Also, the FIT format can > easily be extended to support ECC/Curve25519. very slow vs rsa, but as we will use a generic framework we will just need to add the algo if you can break rsa4096, the chance you can break ECC are high too > > In some cases, where the SoC's ROM code only supports RSA2048 with SHA1, > using stronger settings in Barebox doesn't increase security. So there > we want to use the same settings as the ROM code. agreed but I refuse to allow it unless we have no choice and emit a warning and even I'll prefer to use stonger, yes this will increase the security. As a secure boot is as strong as it's weak link but this will not reduce it either Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
